Currently Playing:

This might not be true in all cases, I mean I think Grand Theft Auto deserves the high scores it's recieving, but do you think that some games get a high score simply because of brand name, and people are too afraid to give it a bad number?

I can't find the article, but I think an author on Gamespot gave Dragon Age 2 a 7.5/10 review and got in a lot of heat because Bioware was paying for most of the advertizements on the site back then and that was one of the lower scores the game got. It was boosted to 8/10, but had it been a smaller game which wasn't getting so much advertizing it would have probably stayed low.

So do you think some websites give average or good games excellent review scores because they fear backlash on forums, or from people spending on advertizing? Below are a few games which I think are only good, not phenominal, yet they recieved excellent metacritic scores.

If you think some games recieved over-inflated scores, please mention which games in specific.

----

P.S. Halo 4 didn't get a high score, but I felt the game was only average. It was a big drop in quality from Bungie Halo games, but it only saw a 4 point drop from Halo Reach. Forza 4 I think ruined the franchise because it forced us to tune every car before a race, and turned the sim into an arcade racer. The Last of Us is good, but IMO it's nowhere nearly as good as Uncharted, and other survival horror themed games like Fallout 3 and Resident Evil 4 are much much better IMO. Galaxy is also a good game, I'd even say a great game, but the best of the gen (after GTA IV)? As for MGS, it's great, but not award winning material IMO.

What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADDgames to the Database Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Currently Playing:

Review scores and (to a greater degree) meta-scores are very useful tools that people rarely try to understand. Because the standards of the different reviewers vary, numbers can mean completely different things to those people, and you have to take that into account.

However, while I don't think it's as big an issue as people perceive it to be, I do think it's a problem. As far as specific games go...

Currently Playing:

I think so. There are a lot of games that I think receive a lot more praise based on name alone. I've made countless arguments about Nintendo games that get high scores because they're Nintendo games, but it's not just Nintendo games.

Journalists overrate high profile games, fans will overrate the games because they're fans.

Tomb Raider was highly praised and while that game might look pretty, it's a poor game. I'm playing Ni No Kuni right now and the combat, one of the main focus' on an RPG is poor, while the story is decent even if cliche but drags on at a slow pace throughout the game. Everything else is good, so it's not all bad, but doesn't deserve all those 10/10s or even the 85 average it ended up with on Metacritic.

Recent Badges:

Oh it happens. Just look at GTA4. I don't know how many but a few reviewers came back after the fact and said they regretted scoring it so high.
I am not sure how anyone can say Nintendo games though. They are judged harsher than any other company.
W101 for example. I read 3 different reviews that said the game would be AAA if it was on PS3 or 360 but because it was on Wii U it was docked points.

I don't know how TLOU is a brand name game, it's a totally new IP so the only brand name is Naughty Dog. I don't think reviewers see the sun shining out of Naughty Dog's arse. Though I personally have loved every single game that has come out of this studio. Ergo in the case of TLOU my personal opinion is that it is a bad example to citein the OP for 2 reasons: it's a bloody fantastic game AND it isn't a brand name game unlike all of the other well worn franchises cited in the OP.

I think some brand name games get higher reviews than they should. But in other cases sub-par brand name games definitely take a hit from reviewers, God of War: Ascension being a good example. I think it got the reviews is deserved, which is considerably lower scores than the GoW trilogy.

“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Currently Playing:

it's very hard, because it's still all subjective. I think Tomb Raider got ~85 what it deserved. But there's a dude above who doesn't agree. Bioshock Infinite, Last of Us, GTA5, Mario Galaxy shouldn't be 95+ imo, and should get around an ~85 as well imo and I enjoyed them about the same as tomb raider and they all have gameplay issues that bother me. But there's plenty who will disagree. While RE4 got what it deserved especially for its time even with its issues.

MGS4 would be my picked for most inflated. But again many would disagree

But, as stated many times, if you look at what is considered a good score for a movie, cd, or tv show. Videogame scores are inflated altogether.

Obviously big games have some effect because of advertising and hype etc... but that's because they're run by human, and things will effect you, some more than others.

Currently Playing:

I fu**ing loved these two games. Resident Evil 4 is by far the best Resident Evil, and I don't think any survival horror will ever match it.

Gears of War 1 was pretty awesome too, so melancholy. That Mad World commercial was just amazing.

Maybe highly rated score are good, just haters gonna hate?

My problem with Resident Evil 4 has much to do with its punishing difficulty. Sign-posting is a major issue, long series of quick-time events are tedious to work through, and the game often decides to insta-kill you with no warning. A good game, certainly, but with significant issues.

Gears of War was fine, but nothing special. The gameplay was a bit too shallow for me to really appreciate it, and the plot was perhaps overly simplistic.

Not exactly sure what you mean by the last bit...

I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

I fu**ing loved these two games. Resident Evil 4 is by far the best Resident Evil, and I don't think any survival horror will ever match it.

Gears of War 1 was pretty awesome too, so melancholy. That Mad World commercial was just amazing.

Maybe highly rated score are good, just haters gonna hate?

My problem with Resident Evil 4 has much to do with its punishing difficulty. Sign-posting is a major issue, long series of quick-time events are tedious to work through, and the game often decides to insta-kill you with no warning. A good game, certainly, but with significant issues.

Gears of War was fine, but nothing special. The gameplay was a bit too shallow for me to really appreciate it, and the plot was perhaps overly simplistic.

Not exactly sure what you mean by the last bit...

You thought Resident Evil 4 was difficult? Have you ever played something like Ninja Gaiden, Too Human, Devil May Cry, or even Vanquish's Challenge Mode? I thought RE4 was a bit on the easy side, but the quick time events were a bit tedious.

For the last bit, maybe highly reviewed games are awesome, and as individuals, we all might disagree with a game or two (you think RE4 is over-rated, I thing MGS4 is over-rated, etc).

What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADDgames to the Database Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results